South of the 49th parallel should follow the guys to the North!
Looking from the rest of the G20 & indeed the G7, Canada has got pretty much everything right, so there is nothing really to debate in their Election, save for Electrifying their Rail System; so that it looks like the Bergen, Norway to St Petersburg, Russia Line, with Pantographs galore!
Prof M H Settelen

I did I not mean to imply that the Senate's vote would be sufficient for the GSPA to become law, I merely meant that the GSPA would need to pass the necessary hurdles to become law (which includes the Senate's vote, as well as the president's signature). That said, I appreciate the endorsement :)

Every pol ought to stand before the nation and declare, "I am lying !"

But...but...if he's lying, he's telling the truth...and if he's telling the truth, he's lying...oh what to do, what to do...

Arrogant rationalists need to learn that the fundamentals of logic are broken. Pretty soon, we're going to have to teach Goedel's Incompleteness Proof in civics. It would certainly do nothing but good in economics. All but the very simplest axiomatic systems are fundamentally flawed. Either they allow some theorems known to be false to be proved, or they are unable to prove some theorems known to be true. Chewing on that for awhile ought to shake your faith in the mathematical approach to complex matters.

Imagining MS as King of America, or as he will rename the country, the Union of American Socialist States...
Gay marriage becomes mandatory.
MSCare provides free veterinary care.
High speed rail from New York to Honolulu.
Marijuana is legalized but White Castle is banned.

If the House wants to pass their budget proposal (HR1), and then pass the Government Shutdown Prevention Act (GSPA) stating that HR1 becomes law if the Senate fails to pass a budget resolution, the House is free to do so. Furthermore, assuming the Senate also passes the GSPA, there doesn't seem to be anything inconsistent with HR1 becoming law without a separate vote. This is essentially a variant on deem and pass; by passing the GSPA, the Senate has effectively voted that HR1 becomes law barring passing of a subsequent Senate budget resolution.

Should there be some Constitutional problem with the idea of contingent passing, this could be solved by rephrasing the bill to state that the provisions of HR1 go into effect should the Senate fail to pass a budget (which is different than saying HR1 itself passes sometime in the future).

Granted, the Senate still has to pass the GSPA (obviously!), which seems unlikely. Still, it's not implausible that the Senate would never bind itself to a default action to take effect if it failed to pass separate legislation. Furthermore, it's not implausible that the Senate's failure to pass the GSPA won't have political consequences: "The Senate not only couldn't pass a budget, they couldn't even pass a self-enforced deadline!"

Now it's quite possible that there remain problems with the language of the GSPA in general, but the basic concept seems coherent.

Funny though it is, to be pedantic I think the recursion problem is avoided by the date provision: if no budget is passed *before* April 6th then HR1 presumably becomes law *on* April 6th, which wouldn't contradict the original condition.

While I do not wish for the Constitution to be abrogated for a unicameral legislature, it would be a welcome miracle if the laws of physiology were bent to enable legislators to eat their own heads. The pay-per-view revenues alone would put a nice dent in the national debt.

In response, President Obama has issued an executive order declaring that if Congress does not pass a budget to fund the federal government for the rest of the year before April 6th, control the budget automatically switches to the executive branch. In support of the constitutionality of this policy, President Obama has cited judicial precedent asserting that during wartime, the President gets to do whatever he wants, and has pointed out that because we're fighting 3 wars right now, he has 3 times the power to do whatever he wants.

Actually now that I think back, INS v. Chadha was specifically about a one-house legislative veto. It's just that its logic would seem to necessarily apply to committee/two-house legislative vetoes as well.